Introduction:Almost all Indian art has been religious, and almost all
forms of artistic tradition have been deeply conservative. The Hindu temple developed over
two thousand years and its architectural evolution took place within the boundaries of
strict models derived solely from religious considerations. Therefore the architect was
obliged to keep to the ancient basic proportions and rigid forms which remained unaltered
over many centuries.

Even particular architectural
elements and decorative details which had originated long before in early timber and
thatch buildings persisted for centuries in one form or another throughout the era of
stone construction even though the original purpose and context was lost. The horseshoe
shaped window is a good example. Its origins lie in the caitya arch doorway first seen in
the third century B.C. at the Lomas Rishi cave in the Barbar Hills. Later it was
transformed into a dormer window known as a gavaksha; and eventually it became an element
in a purely decorative pattern of interlaced forms seen time and time again on the towers
of medieval temples. So, in its essence, Indian architecture is extremely conservative.
Likewise, the simplicity of building techniques like post and beam and corbelled vaulting
were preferred not necessarily because of lack of knowledge or skill, but because of
religious necessity and tradition.

On the other hand, the architect and
sculptor were allowed a great deal of freedom in the embellishment and decoration of the
prescribed underlying principles and formulae. The result was an overwhelming wealth of
architectural elements, sculptural forms and decorative exuberance that is so
characteristic of Indian temple architecture and which has few parallels in the artistic
expression of the entire world.

It is not surprising that the broad
geographical, climatic, cultural, racial, historical and linguistic differences between
the northern plains and the southern peninsula of India resulted, from early on, in
distinct architectural styles. The Shastras, the ancient texts on architecture, classify
temples into three different orders; the Nagara or northern style, the Dravida
or southern  style, and the Vesara or hybrid style which is seen in the Deccan
between the other two. There are also dinsinct styles in peripheral areas such as Bengal,
Kerala and the Himalayan valleys. But by far the most numerous buildings are in either the
Nagara or the Dravida styles and the earliest surviving structural temples can already be
seen as falling into the broad classifications of either one or the other.

In the early years the
most obvious difference between the two styles is the shape of their superstructures.

The Nagara style which developed for
the fifth century is characterized by a beehive shaped tower (called a shikhara, in
northern terminology) made up of layer upon layer of architectural elements such as
kapotas and gavaksas, all topped by a large round cushion-like element called an amalaka.
The plan is based on a square but the walls are sometimes so broken up that the tower
often gives the impression of being circular. Moreover, in later developments such as in
the Chandella temples, the central shaft was surrounded by many smaller reproductions of
itself, creating a spectacular visual effect resembling a fountain.

From the seventh century the Dravida or southern style has a pyramid shaped tower
consisting of progressively smaller storeys of small pavilions, a narrow throat, and a
dome on the top called a shikhara (in southern terminology). The repeated storeys give a
horizontal visual thrust to the southern style.

Less obvious differences between the
two main temple types include the ground plan, the selection and positioning of stone
carved deities on the outside walls and the interior, and the range of decorative elements
that are sometimes so numerous as to almost obscure the underlying architecture.

Bearing in mind the vast areas of
India dominated by the northern style, i.e. from the Himalayas to the Deccan,
it is to be expected that there would be distinct regional variations. For example all of
the following are classified as Nagara - the simple Parasuramesvara temple at Bhubaneswar
in Orissa, consisting only of a shrine and a hall; the temples at Khajuraho with their
spectacular superstructures; and the exquisitely carved Surya temple at Modhera. On the
other hand the southern style, being restricted to a much smaller geographical
area, was more consistent in its development and more predictable in its architectural
features and overall appearance.

In the border areas between the two
major styles, particularly in the modern states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, there was
a good deal of stylistic overlap as well as several distinctive architectural features. A
typical example is the Hoysala temple with its
multiple shrines and remarkable ornate carving. In fact such features are sometimes so
significant as to justify classifying distinct sub-regional groups.The type of raw materials
available from region to region naturally had a significant impact on construction
techniques, carving possibilities and consequently the overall appearance of the temple.
The soft soap-stone type material used by the Hoysala architects of the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries allowed sculptors working in the tradition of ivory and sandalwood
carving to produce the most intricate and ornate of all Indian styles. Hard crystalline
rocks like granite typical of the area around Mamallapuram prevented detailed carving and
resulted in the shallow reliefs associated with Pallava temples of the seventh and with
centuries. In areas without stone, such as parts of Bengal, temples constructed of brick
had quite different stylistic characteristics.

Royal patronage also had a very
significant effect on the stylistic development of temples, and as we have already seen,
regional styles are often identified by the dynasty that produced them. For example we
speak of Pallava, Chola, Hoysala, Gupta, Chalukya and Chandella temples.

It might be assumed that temple
styles would be different for the various Hindu cults. In fact, this was never the case in
India. Even Jain temples such as those at Khajuraho were often built in almost identical
styles to the Hindu temples.

From the eighth century onward with
the development of ever more sophisticated rituals and festivals, the Hindu temple
especially in the south started to expand and become more elaborate. There were more
mandapas for various purposes such as dancing, assembly, eating, or, for example. To house
Nandi, Shivas sacred mount; more subsidiary shrines and other structures; and more
corridors and pillared halls such as the thousand-pillared halls.

Bhaktavatsalar Temple, Tirukkalunkundram - Tamilnadu

But the most significant visual
difference between the later northern and southern styles are the gateways. In the north
the shikhara remains the most prominent element of the temple and the gateway is usually
modest. In the south enclosure walls were built around the whole complex and along these
walls, ideally set along the east-west and north-south axes, elaborate and often
magnificent gateways called gopurams led the devotees into the sacred courtyard. These
gopurams led the devotees into the superstructures and capped with a barrel-shaped roofs
were in fact to become the most striking feature of the south Indian temple. They become
taller and taller, dwarfing the inner sanctum and its tower and dominating the whole
temple site. From the Vijayanagara period (fourteenth to sixteenth century) onward, these
highly embellished and often brightly painted structures become extremely numerous. The
width of the storeys of pavilions and other architectural elements were carefully adjusted
to create a concave contour which is a distinctive characteristic of the Dravida temples
seen throughout the south, particularly in Tamil Nadu.